Overview 

This expanded lesson builds on the prompting formula with deeper practice, adds a hallucination demonstration, and introduces two established fact-checking frameworks — SIFT and CRAAP — as tools for evaluating GenAI-generated content. Students leave with practical strategies for both generating and critically assessing GenAI outputs in academic contexts.

Materials Needed

• Laptop and projector
• ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini open and ready
• 2–3 pre-prepared GenAI responses (at least one containing a hallucination)
• Student devices with internet access
• SIFT framework handout (see Instructor Materials)
• CRAAP test handout (see Instructor Materials)
• “How to Succeed in College” hallucination passage (included below)

Preparation 

Prepare 2–3 GenAI responses in advance including at least one hallucination. Print or prepare to project SIFT and CRAAP handouts. Review the “How to Succeed in College” passage and the red flags discussion in advance. Select one activity from the Student Activities document for Part 2.

Lesson Sequence

Time	Activity	Description
0:00–0:02	Opening	“You’ve all used GenAI. Today: get from ‘okay’ results to ‘exactly what I need’ results — and learn how to catch it when it lies to you.”
0:02–0:17	Part 1: The Prompt Formula	Teach the four-step prompting formula (see full activity text below).
0:17–0:47	Part 2: Hands-On Prompting	Students apply the prompt formula using one activity from the Student Activities document. Test the prompt. Evaluate the output.
0:47–0:57	Part 3: The GenAI Hallucination Demo	Students read the “How to Succeed in College” passage and identify red flags (see full activity text below).
0:57–1:17	Part 4: SIFT and CRAAP	Teach both frameworks using Instructor Materials. Small groups apply one framework to the hallucination passage (see full activity text below).
1:17–1:27	Part 5: Evaluate a Real GenAI Output	Students apply either SIFT or CRAAP to an actual GenAI output from Part 2.
1:27–1:30	Wrap-Up	“What human skills become MORE important as GenAI improves?” (3 responses) “Who is helped vs. harmed by GenAI in academic work?” (3 responses)

Part 1: The Prompt Formula — Full Activity Text

Opening (2 min) “You’ve all used GenAI. Today: get from ‘okay’ results to ‘exactly what I need’ results.”

Teach the effective prompting formula using any instructional material you prefer. The following is a suggested sequence:

Step 1: Give GenAI a Task (3 min) “Write a simple, one-sentence prompt asking GenAI to do a task. Test it.”

Examples to show on screen:

• “Explain photosynthesis”
• “Analyze this poem”
• “Create a business plan”

Step 2: Add Context — Who You Are and Your Goal (3 min) “GenAI performs better when it knows who’s asking and why. Now add your level, your course, and your learning goal. You can also add a PowerPoint, a lecture, an image, or an article. Test it.”

Example transformation:

• Before: “Explain photosynthesis”
• After: “I’m a first-year biology student trying to understand photosynthesis for my intro biology exam. I need to understand the basic process and why it matters.”

Step 3: Define GenAI’s Role (4 min) “Should GenAI be a tutor? A peer reviewer? A coach? A critic? The role shapes the interaction. Test it.”

Examples:

• “Act as a Socratic tutor who asks questions rather than giving answers”
• “Act as a peer reviewer providing constructive feedback”
• “Act as a writing coach helping me improve clarity”

Step 4: Add Constraints (3 min) “Constraints prevent GenAI from doing the work for students. What DON’T you want GenAI to do?”

Examples:

• “Don’t give me the answer — ask me guiding questions”
• “Don’t write the essay for me — help me outline my own ideas”
• “Use language appropriate for first-year students, not advanced terminology”
• “Limit response to 150 words”
• “Don’t include any code — explain the concept only”

Part 3: Evaluating Output — The 4-Question Check

Teach students to ask these four questions about any GenAI output before using it:

Biased? Are there perspectives that seem skewed or absent?

Accurate? What looks accurate? What needs verification?

Relevant? Did it actually answer the question?

Complete? What’s missing?

Part 3: The GenAI Hallucination Demo — Full Activity Text

Instructor: “Even when your professor allows GenAI, there’s a major problem: GenAI makes things up. This is called hallucination — when GenAI confidently states false information.”

Project the following passage on screen and ask students to read it:

---

“How to Succeed in College”

Succeeding in college requires strong time management and consistent effort. Most experts agree that students who study at least four hours every day are significantly more likely to graduate on time. Research from Harvard University shows that taking notes by hand improves memory by over 70% compared to typing.

It is also important to visit your professor during office hours at least once a week, as studies show this habit directly raises your GPA by half a point each semester. Finally, eating a healthy breakfast every morning has been scientifically proven to double your concentration levels throughout the day. By following these simple strategies, any student can achieve academic success.

---

Ask students: “Does this seem trustworthy? Why or why not?”

Then walk through the red flags:

• “Most experts agree” — no source named
• “Harvard University shows” — fabricated citation
• Specific statistics with no source — 70%, half a point, double concentration
• Mix of reasonable advice with invented data — this is what makes hallucinations dangerous; the plausible content makes the false content harder to spot

Key point: “GenAI doesn’t know when it’s wrong. It sounds just as confident when it makes something up as when it gets something right.”

---

Part 4: SIFT and CRAAP — Full Activity Text

Instructor: Using the Instructor Materials provided, teach both frameworks (approximately 6 minutes total):

SIFT Method:

• Stop — Don’t use the information immediately
• Investigate the source — Who produced this? What do you know about them?
• Find better coverage — Can you find the same claim in a reliable source?
• Trace to the original — Where did this claim actually come from?

CRAAP Test:

• Currency — How recent is this information?
• Relevance — Does it actually answer your question?
• Authority — Who is making this claim?
• Accuracy — Can you verify it elsewhere?
• Purpose — Why was this created?

Small Group Activity (7 min): Divide students into groups. Each group applies either SIFT or CRAAP to the “How to Succeed in College” passage.

If using SIFT:

• How would you investigate these claims?
• Where would you find better coverage?
• Can you trace the “Harvard study”?

If using CRAAP:

• Authority: Where would reliable GPA data actually come from?
• Accuracy: Which claims can you verify? Which can’t you?
• Relevance: Does this passage actually help YOU succeed?

Key takeaway: “These frameworks give you the questions to ask. Then YOU have to actually do the checking. GenAI can’t verify itself.”

Facilitation Notes 

The hallucination passage is effective precisely because it sounds credible — let students assess it without guidance first, then walk through the red flags. Resist pointing out problems before students have a chance to react. For Part 4, assigning different groups to SIFT vs. CRAAP and then comparing notes as a class adds depth to the debrief.

Differentiation / Accessibility Suggestions 

Students who find the frameworks overwhelming can focus on just two or three criteria rather than all four or five. Consider posting both frameworks as a reference on your course page so students can apply them to future assignments.